Teacher bargaining proves to be complex

Tuesday

Sep 27, 2011 at 12:01 AMSep 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Janese Silvey

The Columbia Board of Education is in a sticky situation when it comes to collective bargaining, but doing nothing isn’t an option.

“People have this idea the district can say we’re not going to enter into collective bargaining,” board member Helen Wade said. “We can’t do that. As the law stands, we have an obligation to allow for that to occur.”

Wade, an attorney, outlined collective bargaining issues to a policy committee made up of Columbia Public Schools representatives, community members and students yesterday.

The group took no action on the proposed policy, which would allow for an exclusive representative to bargain on behalf of teachers.

The district and its two primary teachers’ groups have been haggling over representation since a Missouri Supreme Court ruling in 2007 opened the door to collective bargaining for public-sector employees.

Initially, the district, along with other public entities, waited for state lawmakers to pass legislation setting guidelines for bargaining. That never happened, leaving the school district in the dark about how to proceed.

Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed in other Missouri communities by public employees wanting to exercise their bargaining rights. That’s going to happen to Columbia Public Schools unless the board proceeds, Wade warned.

“We prefer not to get sued and to do things in a prescribed framework,” she said.

But adopting a bargaining policy isn’t simple in Columbia. Some 600 of the 1,500 teachers here are members of the Missouri National Education Association. The school district said another third of the teachers belong to the Missouri State Teachers Association and a third of the teachers aren’t affiliated with either group. Columbia MSTA President Kari Schuster would not say how many members the local chapter has.

The policy heading to the school board next month would allow teachers to vote for either CMNEA or CMSTA to exclusively represent them or to vote for no representation.

But CMSTA and some board members favor an alternative process that would let teachers first decide whether they want to be represented by one group or by multiple groups.

“Having that option is valid,” said Schuster, an ex officio member of the committee.

Representatives trying to bargain on behalf of a collective group would have to be on the same page, though, Wade said. “What happens if two people who represent that unit don’t agree?” she asked.

And that would probably happen here. The two groups have starkly different ideas when it comes to working with administrators. MSTA is known for being an administrator-friendly advisory group, while NEA is viewed as a more powerful negotiating agent.

The two groups have been at odds in Columbia Public Schools for years. Historically, administrators have only recognized the local MSTA group. After the court ruling, the district began allowing CMNEA equal face time in hopes that a meet-and-confer process would negate a request for exclusive representation.

One advantage of having a single representative would be that the group would speak on behalf of all teachers, even those not affiliated with either association, CMNEA President Susan McClintic said. Non-NEA members would not be expected to pay dues, she has said.

Tom Stone, a community member on the committee, said having multiple representatives would be like trying to get children to work together.

“It’s hard to come to consensus,” he said. The policy allowing for a vote on an exclusive representative, he said, “is really the best version.”